Probably because the summary and headline ware written to attract attention, and they did.

True I guess. But it's like so much of "news" these days. A headline that's begging to be clicked on, but then there's nothing there. What you'd expect for those websites with tens of advertisements, click-overs and click-unders, ("Fourteen minor league third basemen with insanely hot wives! Number six will give you a hernia!) but not what you'd expect in what was ostensibly a geek news site.

Again, this is what editors are supposedly for. But.... I guess not. I'd go somewhere else for news, but where

Check all of his submissions, they're all trying to astroturf his shitty 'news' site

While a good observation, I don't think anybody's really astroturfing. The submitter's user name is MikeChino, who seems to be the 'Managing Editor' at that particular blog. If anything, they're doing SEO.

Nonetheless, I'd never trust a site where the editors have selfies as profile pictures. If they can't be bothered to go to a professional photographer to take a decent picture for their bio, what does that tell about the quality of their stories?

A quality story now requires a professional photographer? I didn't know that was a requirement, I will definitely make sure anything I read online is backed up by a man in a suit to ensure only the truest information passes by me.

Tl;dr? GP tried to link two unrelated events acting as if one requries the other to be true. Site/Blog could be shit still, just raising the poor argument.

While a good article does not require a professional photographer, presenting yourself with a selfie displays a tendency to laisez faire solutions - a tendency that may very well be displayed in your journalistic integrity as well.

As always, the two may have nothing to do with each other, professional journalists certainly write their share of BS, but there is nothing inherently wrong in considering it the first warning that something is amiss.

Actually, no, they aren't. There is the California Highway Patrol and the California State Police. There actually is a difference, although slight between the two. It might be interesting to know which one of the two it was. The CHP often is the defacto police agency for many remote parts of California (and Aliso Viejo certainly ISN'T, but it wouldn't be unheard of for the Orange County Sheriff to either give zero fucks or have zero people to handle it). The CSP largely protects the State Capitol compl

http://www.dailynews.com/gener... [dailynews.com]
It was CHP. Protestors scaled the outside of the building, demanded all gas storage facilities in the state be shut down, and said they would occupy the PUC until their demands were met.

Uh huh. Close all gas storage facilities. Right... Do these people not even consider what the outcome of that would be? Next it will be get rid of all dams and water storage facilities, it's just as logical.

There were in fact California State Police, but they were rarely seen outside Sacramento, the state capitol, as their duty was to protect the state buildings, and our elected officials. The California Highway patrol are tasked with patrolling the freeways and highways that cross county jurisdictions, with the stated purpose of traffic enforcement and assisting with incidents that cross county lines. There are also California State park police, aka Rangers, who are full on police but generally limited to, guess what, state parks and some county park/open space areas that contract to the state for such services.

No, it's not "shocking" that authorities would arrest someone who knowingly committed a minor crime rather than investigate one who caused a large-scale industrial accident, even if negligence was involved. Because, you know, that would require some bureaucrat to get off their ass and do some work rather than rubber-stamping forms and collecting fees. And it might just inadvertently highlight some systemic corruption or incompetence within the department, and that could just get plain messy. No one wants that. The protesters are low-hanging fruit. I sometimes wonder why it is some people put so much faith in their government when they're every bit has corrupt and/or incompetent as these corporations that are vilified so much?

But unbelievably, the activists are now the ones going to jail.

This writer is quite easily flabbergasted, isn't he? Or he loves faux-outrage. Either way, it makes him sound ridiculous and juvenile. Don't misunderstand... I'm sympathetic to what happened to these poor people who had to move out of their homes because of this gas leak, but the "article" is laughably bad. Yellow journalism is apparently back with a vengeance.

the CSP arrested two protesters who draped banners on the headquarters of the California Public Utilities Commission

Oho... I think I spotted the problem here. They went and pissed off government officials. That's why the hammer came down on them. And when you piss off the government, they can send police after you to arrest you and cart you off to jail.

P.S. If I get modded down as flamebait, I'm going to blame government officials with mod points for trying to silence me.

No, it's not "shocking" that authorities would arrest someone who knowingly committed a minor crime rather than investigate

And it is even less shocking that the police would arrest someone who is currently committing a crime in public while still investigating a potential crime committed by the officials of a company. As in, they can see the protesters committing the crime, but it may take a while to examine documents to determine liability in a corporate environment.

Where did we get the idea that arresting protesters in the act meant that they were arrested INSTEAD of someone else who allegedly committed some other, corporate crime?

Honestly, I'm not all that sympathetic with the people who did this. But lets get real... hanging banners in a place you aren't supposed to is about as minor a crime as you can perform and still call it a "crime", possibly just shy of jaywalking. Unless, of course, you're Greenpeace and you stomp all over an incredibly fragile natural treasure, scarring it permanently. But this was a banner hung on an office building.

We'll see if anything comes of this investigation other than a slap on the wrist - my be

But lets get real... hanging banners in a place you aren't supposed to is about as minor a crime as you can perform and still call it a "crime",

It is trespassing and potential destruction of government property. It's a crime. It may be a minor crime in your opinion, but still a crime.

And you ignored the point that they can be arresting these folks for that crime while still investigating whatever other crime it is that you are more concerned about, so the statement that these folks were arrested INSTEAD of the others is ridiculous. A more complicated, white-collar crime requires more investigation than a trespass, and you'd expect trespassers to b

This was at the California Public Utilities Commission, a regulatory agency.

The company responsible for the leak is the Southern California Gas Co., and they've been arraigned on criminal charges already. (Admittedly, the charges they've brought so far don't carry much of a penalty, but at least they're being charged.)

The corporation has been charged but none of the people at the corporation have been charged.

Corporations can't go to jail. All they can do is pay fines or be dis-incorporated. Historically the fines charged tend to be minute - small fractions of the cost to make whole - and they are almost never dis-incorporated.

Charging a corporation is like giving a warning to a person - it does nothing.

If you want to truly punish wrong doing by corporations, you HAVE to press criminal charges and not at low level either. If the head of the corporation does not personally know the guy going to jail (or go to jail himself), he's just going to do the same old crap all over again.

None of that changes the fact that the headline is wrong by making it seem like activists were arrested for causing the gas leak instead of execs. The activists were arrested for trespassing and vandalism.

The problem is proving them is next to impossible. Just look at the BP case, the criminal trials ended up falling to the point that one person is now facing a misdemeanor despite 7 high level criminal charges brought against him including manslaughter. The only personal punishment so far was by someone who pleaded guilty as they didn't want to go through years of legal battle and the $50000 fine would have been less than the legal fees anyway.

Thats because the government agencies don't care about charges. They press for fines, as the criminal charges come from prosecutor who rarely investigate till after the agencies do/.

Basically, the agencies should have a new rule - penalties must exceed cost to fix unless someone goes to jail. You want the minute fines, that's fine - as long as the corporation provides evidence against their employees. If not, the fines must cover total fix.

It's time to introduce jail for corporations. In Japan corporations can be forced to shut down for a number of days. Staff sometimes get paid if they were not to blame, but otherwise the company can't do any business at all during that period.

Sounds good. I do think that during that period corporations should be allowed to dissolve (but not go bankrupt). But how can you apply that to an international corporation? Especially not one incorporated within your legal bounds? Forbidding them to do business locally isn't quite the same thing. And what about rents due during that period on premises they occupy?

I think that this would require an entirely new set of laws to be written. Does making a river poisonous count as 1 week, 1 year, or one decade "in prison"? Does it depend on who uses the river for what? Whoo! The idea has merit, but implementation would be horrendous, with many questions that have no obvious answer, and you know who would be pushing for minimal punishment.

Sounds good. I do think that during that period corporations should be allowed to dissolve (but not go bankrupt). But how can you apply that to an international corporation? Especially not one incorporated within your legal bounds? Forbidding them to do business locally isn't quite the same thing. And what about rents due during that period on premises they occupy?

I think that this would require an entirely new set of laws to be written. Does making a river poisonous count as 1 week, 1 year, or one decade "in prison"? Does it depend on who uses the river for what? Whoo! The idea has merit, but implementation would be horrendous, with many questions that have no obvious answer, and you know who would be pushing for minimal punishment.

The problem isn't in being able to apply punishment to either companies or those behind the companies because the legal framework already exists for this.

The problem is that governments prefer to be bought off with large bribes (or penalties / fees if you prefer) and to get those bribes they have to agree not to penalize the company and those behind the company in any real way.

You are right, it does require new laws. There are allowances for things like paying rent and suppliers, the rule is basically that the company can't do anything that generates profit like selling goods, manufacturing, getting new business, attending conferences etc.

It's a great idea because it scales nicely with the business. For example, Apple make so much money that any fine is likely to be insignificant and written off as the cost of doing business, far smaller than the resulting profit. However, force

The corporation has been charged but none of the people at the corporation have been charged.

Corporations can't go to jail. All they can do is pay fines or be dis-incorporated. Historically the fines charged tend to be minute - small fractions of the cost to make whole - and they are almost never dis-incorporated.

Actually, disincorporation is not an option, given that it's a California Company, and that's not a legal remedy (i.e. it would take a majority of shareholders voting to voluntarily dissolve). Delaware and Pennsylvania have similar restrictions (Pennsylvania requires both a majority and illegal activity by the directors, among other causes).

Not that the whole "make whole" argument is pretty bastardized for this case, since the amount of methane being leaked, if it goes on for a full year, is about the same

Pretty difficulty to trespass on public ground. Even if they climbed the building, climbing is not illegal.

The Capitol building and White House are public ground. I guarantee that if I were to step on the White House lawn much less climb either building, at best there would be some "nice men who would like to have a chat with me". Most likely there would be a Secret Service sniper eager to take the shot.

Just because it is a public building doesn't mean that everyone can do anything they want.

The California State Patrol has arrested two people... instead of busting company executives and engineers that caused the leak, the CSP arrested protesters who had draped banners on the headquarters of the California Public Utilities Commission.

In other words, exactly the right people? On the one hand you have "company executives and engineers" that are responsible for the loss of control over an industrial process; which has been clearly documented, who are currently the subject of state and federal investigation, and which is sure to lead to fines and punishment to cost hundreds of millions of dollars. On the other hand you have a bunch of self-righteous protesters, with no understanding of the real facts of what it takes to provide for millions of lives, who trespassed and possibly defaced/damaged private property. The local authorities have dealt with the local violations. The state/federal authorities are dealing with the state/federal violations. In other words, exactly what is suppose to be happening.

I expect (hope) the police will enforce the laws, and arrest people who have violated the laws, and not those who have not done so. The laws may be bad or biased in various ways, but it is not the job of the police to change laws - that is the function of the legislature.

Complex violations of the law require more proof and investigation than simple everyday offenses.

The case against any executives from the responsible company would involve proving that they were negligent, violated some codes, transmitted false information, etc. etc. etc. Duh. Do you even know what specific offenses they would be charged under? I'm guessing not.

The protesters climbed on a building that wasn't theirs. Even I can figure out what laws that violates.

The execs probably will eventually be charged. It just takes more time, but the wheels of justice do turn.

In the US we don't normally arrest people for honest mistakes, assuming they actually made mistakes, even if it's a result of incompetence. Unless someone has evidence to the contrary, it's perfectly reasonable to arrest the protesters without arresting anyone at the company.

I really, really don't like this idea that someone has to go to jail every time something goes wrong. It's corrosive, and it will end up shielding people who really do belong in jail.

I agree. And this, incidentally, is why we don't allow legal proceedings to pierce the corporate veil very often. We want engineers and technical people in general to feel safe to do their jobs and innovate for the betterment of society. It's extremely rare to actually press criminal charges against them, unless there are obvious, egregious, purposeful ethics violations. This isn't a third world country, where you design a plant with a flaw you didn't anticipate, and they drag you out of your home in the mi

Mistakes? They intentionally put the gas there, someplace it should have never been stored in case there was a problem. This is an incredibly seismically active area we're talking about, that is to say, the whole goddamned state. This was a horrible, terrible, ridiculous idea from the beginning, and anyone willing to take money for it should be fired out of a cannon without a safety net.

Pasadena Star News [pasadenastarnews.com] has a far better write-up on this. One, is was the California Highway Patrol. Two, the building they trespassed on is owned by the California Public Utilities Commission, which is a.gov so it's probably property belonging to the State of California ("after scaling state building" in the headline). Three, the protesters are quoted "we are occupying the PUC".

It has come to the point that many people now believe that only "certain people" are arrestable in the US. For example, find just one federal conviction last year for a man sleeping with an under- age prostitute. Yet twelve- year- olds do get arrested for prostitution but not the Johns.

Instead of busting company executives and engineers that caused the leak, the CSP arrested protesters who had draped banners on the headquarters of the California Public Utilities Commission. The banners highlighted the lax regulatory environment that enabled the spill.

Which caused the accident, the executives and engineers or the lax regulatory environment?

Yeah, I'm sure multimillionaires that make big donations to leading politicians are going to be totally prosecuted.

We all know what will happen. Some pathetic middle manager will be set up as the bad guy, while the board and senior executives get off, likely without a warning, and after executives have been rewarded vast bonuses because, you know, no matter how incompetent or evil an MBA is, they attract money like a black hole attracts matter.